Norma Del Socorro Vs.

Wilsem
GR No. 193707
December 10, 2014

Facts:

Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland on
September 25, 1990. They were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van
Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree
issued by the appropriate Court of Holland. Thereafter, Norma and her son came
home to the Philippines. According to Norma, Ernst made a promise to provide
monthly support to their son amounting to 250 Guildene, equivalent to
Php17,500.00 more or less. However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in
the Philippines, Ernst never gave support to Roderigo. Respondent came to the
Philippines and remarried again a Filipina and resides again the Philippines
particularly in Cebu where the petitioner also resides. Norma filed a complaint
against Ernst for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s unjust refusal to
support his minor child with petitioner. The trial court dismissed the complaint
since the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense with respect
to the accused, he being an alien

Issues:

1. Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child under the
Philippine law?
2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No.
9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor child.

Ruling:

1. YES. While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the

Netherlands, we agree with the RTC that he is subject to the laws of his country,
not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as
well as the consequences of his failure to do so. This does not, however, mean that
Ernst is not obliged to support Norma’s son altogether. In international law, the
party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden
of proving the foreign law. In the present case, Ernst hastily concludes that being a
national of the Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision
of and capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in
advancing his position that he is not obliged to support his son, he never proved the
same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove that the national law of the
Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to support their child.
Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged
and proved. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application
would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give
justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract
that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.
Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a
parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize the non-compliance therewith,
such obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of
great injustice to the child to be denied of financial support when the latter is
entitled thereto.

2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262) because the
foreigner is living here in the Philippines and committed the offense here.
Jabalde v. People
GR No. 195224
June 15, 2016

Facts:

Lin was a Grade 1 pupil of Cawitan Elementary School that around 9:00
a.m. of December 13, 2000 was playing "langit lupa" during recess with Ray Ann,
Marco, Nova and another classmate. During the course of their game, he touched
the shoulder of Nova, respondent’s daughter, causing the latter to fall down and
wounding her head, who he helped to stand while one of his classmates called
Jabalde. Afraid of what happened, he ran towards a dilapidated building, which
was near the place of the incident. Soon thereafter, Jabalde arrived and slapped him
on his neck and choked him. Lin was able to get out of her hold when he removed
her hands from his neck. He told his mother Aileen about the incident and he was
brought to the hospital for treatment and a medical certificate was then issued to
him.

Dr. Muñoz testified that she was the physician who issued the medical
certificate to Lin on December 13, 2000 for the physical examination conducted
upon the latter. Dr. Muñoz stated that Lin sustained abrasions: two (2) linear
abrasions 1 cm in length at the base of the right mandibular area; one (1) linear
abrasion 1 inch in length at the right lateral neck; two (2) linear abrasions 1 cm in
length at the back of the neck; and four (4) minute circular abrasions at the left
lateral neck. According to her, the abrasions could have been caused by a hard
object but mildly inflicted and that these linear abrasions were signs of fingernail
marks. Moreover, the abrasions were greenish in color signifying that they were
still fresh. She did not notice other injuries on the body of Lin except those on his
neck.9chanrobleslaw

Ray Ann, the classmate and playmate of Lin, testified that she knows
Jabalde because she was a teacher at Cawitan Elementary School. At about 9:00
a.m. of December 13, 2000, she was playing "langit lupa" with Lin, Nova, Ryan
and Rhea. Nova, who was standing on top of an unstable stone fell on the ground
and thereafter hit her head on the stone. Then, somebody called Jabalde, Nova's
mother. When Jabalde came to see her daughter, she struck Lin on his neck then
squeezed it. Lin cried and was able to free himself and ran towards their house.
Jabalde then shouted, "Better that you are able to free yourself because if not I
should have killed you."10 Ray Ann saw Lin again after their class dismissal at
11:00 a.m. when she went to their house. Lin did not return to school again
because he was afraid of Jabalde. During cross examination, Ray Ann testified that
Lin did not run into the dilapidated building after the incident and that she was near
them when Jabalde struck Lin.
Issue:
Whether or not acts complained of are covered by the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
or R.A. No. 7610.

Ruling:

No. Jabalde was accused of slapping and striking Lin, hitting the latter on
his nape, and immediately thereafter, choking the said offended party causing the
latter to sustain injuries. However, the records of the case do not show that Jabalde
intended to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of Lin as a
human being.

The laying of the hands on Lin was an offshoot of Jabalde's emotional

outrage after being informed that her daughter's head was punctured, and whom
she thought was already dead. In fact, her vision got blurred and she fainted. When
she returned into consciousness, she sat on her chair in front of the board for about
five to ten minutes. Moreover, the testimony of the examining physician, Dr.
Muñoz, belied the accusation that Jabalde, with cruelty and with intent, abused,
maltreated and injured Lin, to wit:
The abrasions could have been caused by a hard object but mildly inflicted.
She also testified that the linear abrasions were signs of fingernail marks. She did
not notice other injuries on the body of the victim except those on his neck.
Moreover, the abrasions were greenish in color, signifying that they were still
fresh.

It would be unforeseeable that Jabalde acted with cruelty when prosecution's

witness herself testified that the abrasions suffered by Lin were just "mildly
inflicted." If Jabalde indeed intended to abuse, maltreat and injure Lin, she would
have easily hurt the 7-year-old boy with heavy blows.

As a mother, the death of her child, who has the blood of her blood, and the
flesh of her flesh, is the most excruciating idea that a mother could entertain. The
spontaneity of the acts of Jabalde against Lin is just a product of the instinctive
reaction of a mother to rescue her own child from harm and danger as manifested
only by mild abrasions, scratches, or scrapes suffered by Lin, thus, negating any
intention on inflicting physical injuries. Having lost the strength of her mind, she
lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child
abuse. In fine, the essential element of intent was not established with the
prescribed degree of proof required for a successful prosecution under Section
10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610